Congress 2.0 misses chance to abandon socialism and embrace liberalism

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet," said Shakespeare.
But in politics, names matter because they help people understand a party’s ideology, which is supposed to be the guiding principle of any political party. In Nepal, however, almost all political parties seem to have taken Shakespeare’s ‘What’s in a name?’ a little too seriously. Their names promise one ideology, while their actions practice another, making the name less a reflection of their politics and more a convenient disguise for it.
And Nepali Congress is no different, let alone the leftist, or people and leaders love to call themselves communist parties.
Learning from the way the left parties – who have been promoting crony capitalism in the name of socialism – in Nepal over the past decade, many had hoped that Nepali Congress would, during its 15th General Convention, embrace a free, fair and competitive market economy. However, the grand old party (GOP) has once again disappointed.
Whatever its practice may have been, Nepali Congress has always described itself as a democratic socialist party, also as its founding principle. Therefore, although the Congress’s interpretation of socialism is theoretically different from that of the left, there has long been a public complaint that the citizens have felt little or no difference between democratic socialism and leftist socialism. One of the major reasons for growing public distrust of political parties is the vast gap between what they profess and what they actually practice.
With little expectation from the left parties on the issue, the 15th General Convention offered the Nepali Congress an opportunity to reconcile its principles with its practice.
There were two reasons for this.
First, at least through the branding of ‘Nepali Congress 2.0,’ the party had sought, through its special convention six months ago, to present itself as synonymous with transformation and generational change.
Second, Nepali Congress 2.0 has repeatedly claimed that it will not enter electoral alliances with anyone. Since party President Gagan Thapa himself has been vocal on the issue, it should also be understood as an assertion that the Congress is different from the left and will not contest elections in alliance with the left parties.
Over the past three decades, whether competing for power or sharing it, whether as opponents, rivals or political bed-partners, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), or CPN-UML, and the former CPN (Maoist), or current Nepali Communist Party (NCP) – broadly speaking the left parties – have been the principal political counterparts of the Nepali Congress. Gagan Thapa had opposed former Nepali Congress 1.0 president Sher Bahadur Deuba largely because of his repeated alliances with them.
There are, of course, royalist forces and the current ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). But it would be premature to assume that Nepali Congress 2.0 will any sooner form an electoral alliance with them.
Therefore, even if Nepali Congress was not expected to make an ideological leap directly from socialism to capitalism, there was an expectation that the 15th General Convention would bring greater clarity to its economic policy. After all, the party has moved from its traditional guiding or founding principle of ‘Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism’ replacing the term Prajatantra – as it refers king and subjects and gives monarchist reflection – with loktantra – the people’s democracy – in Nepali, while retaining the same three core principles.
The political report presented by President Gagan Thapa itself acknowledges this. It states that the fundamental basis of the Nepali Congress's economic outlook is Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism. It says the democratic socialism developed by party founder and national leader BP Koirala placed not merely statistical economic growth but the life, human dignity, participation and opportunities of ordinary citizens at the center of development. The report says that, while embracing BP’s historic symbol of the ‘farmer ploughing the land,’ the party has now placed at the center of its economic development policy the reality of a ‘young person standing with a passport in hand or looking for opportunities within the country.’
If the report recognizes such a fundamental difference between BP Koirala’s era and today's economic landscape, markets, the character of markets, the role of the private sector and the role of government, then there is little justification for continuing to cling to the same old ‘democratic socialism’.
Unless, of course, the intention is to continue writing ‘socialism’ in the documents, while embracing crony capitalism in practice, just as the left has done over the years. If that is the case, could Nepali Congress 2.0 become even more controversial and alienated from citizens than its previous version?
Regardless of how differently the report interprets socialism, Nepali Congress 2.0 has clearly missed an opportunity. The word ‘socialism’ itself has become discredited in Nepal. Every Nepalis raise an eyebrow when they look at the lifestyles, houses and wealth of socialist aka communist leaders.
This should not, however, be interpreted to mean that accumulating wealth is a crime. In Nepali society, there is already a strange contradiction: making profits through trade and business and accumulating wealth through productive economic activity are often viewed with suspicion, while accumulating wealth through politics without any formal source of income is treated as a sign of greatness.
Nepali Congress 2.0 has not made it clear whose interests it actually seeks to represent.
At times it appears capitalist; at other times socialist. Such ambiguity may attract liberal left intellectuals, but economy cannot be function dynamically through such an unclear and indecisive policy.
It also appears that Nepali Congress 2.0 has not fully claimed ownership of, or embraced, the liberal economic policies pursued under Nepali Congress leadership after 1991. If the intention is to maintain such a gap between principle and practice, there was little need to elaborate on socialism at all.
If the party intends to continue writing ‘socialism’ in its documents, while doing whatever it wants in practice, it might at least have offered a word of thanks to former finance ministers Mahesh Acharya and Dr Ram Sharan Mahat.
Not only the left but the Nepali Congress itself has consistently criticized and harassed them for their liberal economic policies, alas due to which the country is still not a failure state. And today, there is hardly anyone in the Congress willing to realize that Nepal did not collapse economically even during a decade-long Maoist insurgency because of the economic policies pursued under the duo’s leadership.
This may indicate that the left leaning of democratic Nepali Congress is accelerating.
That does not mean Acharya and Dr Mahat had no shortcomings or that everything they did was correct. Their practical implementation of liberal economic policies also had procedural weaknesses. Those weaknesses could have been corrected and the policy framework taken forward. But the belief that the Nepali Congress can fool the people by using the word ‘socialism’ has rendered even the achievements made under Nepali Congress’s own leadership irrelevant.
Those, who are reluctant even to claim credit for the expansion of the private sector and the employment opportunities created within the country will struggle to convince youth that they can create jobs in Nepal, and that too projecting a youth with passport in his hands.
Had BP Koirala been alive today, what would he say?
Therefore, while Sher Bahadur Deuba has been blamed for the leftward drift of the Nepali Congress due to physical coalition, it would not be unreasonable to say that today's transformed or generationally renewed Congress – Nepali Congress 2.0 – is creating ideologically coalition.
This could also lead to allegations that the political and economic ideological commitment of Gagan Thapa, who was accused of capturing the party through the special convention and now stands unopposed at the 15th General Convention, is left tilted ideologically, which can never become the benchmark for transforming the Nepali Congress.
As the report reads, BP Koirala’s historic perspective, shaped by an era defined by land reform, illiteracy and rural poverty, centered on the ‘farmer ploughing the land’. The basis of BP’s projection of ‘farmer ploughing the land’ was production, and productivity.
However, today's Nepali is primarily a consumer, not a producer.
Yesterday, land was a source of production. Today, land is largely a transactional instrument for quick money. It produces little or no, and creates no employment, but balloons the financial market and help crash the bank and financial institutions. We have already had bad experience of cooperatives and failing of some banks and financial institutions due to land or collateral.
Therefore, socialism alone cannot solve the structural problems of current Nepali economy. Even if the diagnosis of the disease is correct, the disease will not be cured, if the medicine is wrong. Nepali Congress 2.0 has, in that sense, prescribed a wrong pill to the economic ills of today’s Nepal.
The report also states that ‘the state should function not as a trader or owner, but as a fair regulator, guardian of good governance, builder of modern infrastructure and provider of quality public services.'
Of course, the state's role should be narrowed, with the government focusing on policy formulation and monitoring the market to ensure free, fair, competitive and disciplined implementation, while allowing the market to function. Many of Nepal's problems in recent years have emerged because the state or government has become stronger while governance has remained weaker.
Thus, Nepali Congress cannot transform itself by weakening institutions, or helping to weaken them, or refusing to adopt liberal economic policies instead of socialism, which is a cliché.
Ultimately, continuity in ideology without changing the tools will not increase private-sector investment, productivity or employment.
Likewise, ‘private-sector investment,’ ‘productivity’ and ‘employment’ are among the most abused terms in Nepal today. Every political party or every so-called intellectual has memorized them. But none has been able to translate them adequately into practice.
If Nepali Congress genuinely wants the private sector to drive prosperity, it must meaningfully update its economic ideology. Clinging to the word ‘socialism’ alone by redefining it with new terminology or adding explanatory commentary will neither help transform Nepali Congress not Nepal.
(First Published in nepalkhara.com on October 7, 2026 -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/20070/)